Civil Rights Report on Onteora School District

8/2/2019 Civil Rights Report on Onteora School District

1/13

,,,,,\~T~ . F ? I ) ( / .. ; ! ' ; , " ~ ' ,y:;;: ,;?'g " ' , ,1:/ .* *:":,';;'r' rt-.?-,;/~:~~,f'V

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

32 OLD SLIP, 26TH FLOORNEW YORK, NEW YORK 10005'

TIMOTHY C. J. BLANCHARDDIRECTORNEW YORK OFFICE

November 4, 2011Melissa Goodman, Esq. INew York Civil Liberties Union125 Broad Street, 19th FloorNew York, New York 10004Re:C:~se N o . 02-11-1203Ont~orll Central School DistrictDear.Ms.Goodman:This letter isto notify you of the determination made by the U.S. Department of Education, NewYork Office for Civil Rights (OCR) with respect to the above-referenced complaint you filedagainst the Onteora Central School District. You alleged that the District discriminated againststudents, on the basis of sex, by failing to respond appropriately to incidents of peer-an-peersexual harassment (Allegation I); and by failing to adopt and publish grievance procedures thatprovide for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints of sex discrimination and/or sexualharassment (Allegation 2). Hereinafter, you will be referred to as "the complainant."

r OCR is responsible for enforcing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), asamended, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 106, whichprohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in programs and activities receiving financialassistance from the U.S. Department of Education (the Department). The District is a recipientof financial assistance from the Department and is a public elementary and secondary educationsystem. Therefore, OCR has jurisdictional authority to investigate this complaint under Title IX.In its investigation, OCR interviewed District staff. OCR also reviewed documentation thecomplainant and the District submitted. OCR made the following determinations.

Allegation 1 .With respect to Allegation 1, the complainant alleged that the District failed to respondappropriately to incidents of peer-on-peer sexual harassment. In support of her allegation, thecomplainant identified two students who allegedly reported to District staff that they weresubjected to sexual harassment by their peers at the Onteora High School (the School).Specifically, the complainant alleged that students at the School repeatedly subjected a femalestudent (Student 1) to sexual harassment, and a male student (Student 2) to gender-basedharassment. The complainant alleged that the harassment was reported to District staff, but thatthe District failed to take appropriate action.

T he D epartm ent o/ E ducation's m ission is to p rom ote student achievem en t and preparation /or glo bal com petitiveness byfo ste rin g e du ca tio na l e xc elle nce a nd e nsu rin g eq ua l a cc ess.


2/13

Page 2 of 10-Melissa Goodman, Esq.

Title IX and its implementing regulation prohibit discrimination based on sex, including sexualharassment. Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature and can include sexualadvances, request . fo r sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct. Hostileenvironment sexual harassment is sexually harassing conduct that is sufficiently severe,persistent or pervasive to limit a student's ability to participate in or receive benefits, services oropportunities in the recipient's program. If a recipient has actual or constructive notice of thehostile environnient, a recipient is required to take immediate and effective corrective actionreasonably calculated to stop the harassment, prevent its recurrence and, as appropriate, remedyits effects.

A. Student 1The complainant alleged that students at the School, all of whom were female, subjected Student

. Lt.sexual harassment, Additionally, the.complainantalleged that Student l 's.mother repeatedlyreported the alleged harassment to District staff, including the Superintendent and the School'sAssistant Principal, who failed to take appropriate action.OCR determined that on October 20, 2010, Student l's parents complained to the AssistantPrincipal that certain students at the School were subjecting Student 1 to threatening textmessages and Facebook posts. OCR determined that in response, on October 22, 2010, theAssistant Principal and Student l' s guidance counselor met with Student 1 and her parents, whoprovided copies of the text messages and Facebook posts. OCR determined that neither Student1 nor her parents indicated at this meeting that they believed the text messages and Facebookposts constituted sexual harassment or were because of Student l' s sex. OCR determined thatnone of the Facebook posts or text messages were based on Student l ' s sex or were of a sexualnature. Additionally, none of the Facebook posts referred to Student 1 by name or were postedon Student l' s Facebook page.OCR determined that during this meeting, Student l' s parents also alleged that students werespreading a rumor that Student 1 was pregnant. The Assistant Principal informed OCR thatalthough the parents provided the names of the students who allegedly spread the rumor, they did.not state when the alleged rumor was spread, how it was spread, or to whom. The AssistantPrincipal informed OCR that she did not understand that Student 1 or her parents were raisingthe rumor asan allegation of sexual harassment; rather, it appeared - that there was animositybetween Student 1 and these students that manifested in name-calling and the spreading of thepregnancy rumor. OCR found no evidence that Student l's parents reported to the AssistantPrincipal, or that the Assistant Principal knew or otherwise should have known, that Student 1 orher parents believed these students had subjected Student 1 to harassment based on her sex.Nevertheless, in response to the concerns raised, the District changed Student 1's schedule sothat she would not be in the same classes as the students involved, and allowed her to have lunchin the guidance office with her friends. .Additionally, the Assistant Principal contacted theparents of the other students involved to discuss the situation.The Assistant Principal informed OCR that between the meeting on October 22, 2010, and thedate the complainant wrote to the District on November 30, 2010, she received two complaintsfrom Student' 1 regarding alleged threatening/harassing conduct; but neither complaint involvedalleged sexual harassment, or was reported as such.


3/13

Page 3 of 10-Melissa Goodman, Esq.OCR determined that by letter dated November 30, 2010, the complainant alleged to theSuperintendent that Student 1 was subjected to sexual harassment. OCR determined that thiswas the first time the District was on notice of an allegation of alleged sexual harassment ofStudent 1. The complainant alleged that students had subjected Student 1 to name-calling, andhad spread rumors of a sexual nature about Student 1;however, the complainant did not providethe names of these students.OCR determined that in response to the complainant's letter, the Assistant Superintendent, in herrole as Title IX Coordinator, commenced an investigation in December 2010. OCR determinedthat the Assistant Superintendent commenced her investigation by speaking with District staffand the complainant about the allegations.: OCR determined that the Assistant Superintendentthen attempted to contact Student' l' s parents repeatedly beginning January 3, 2011, but haddifficulty reaching them and scheduling a meeting; they did not meet until February 7, 2011.aGR . determined that during the meeting, the Assistant Superintendent asked Student 1 toprovide copies of text messages discussed at the meeting; however, Student 1 did not providethese until March 29,2011.On March 29, 201'1, Student 1 provided the Assistant Superintendent with several Facebookposts from the previous school year, May and June 2010, which she alleged were evidence ofsexual harassment; some of which included language such as "I hate stupid bitches like her,""she's a pussy" and "dumb bitch," but none of which referred to Student 1 by name or identifiedher in any manner. Student 1 also informed the Assistant Superintendent that on severaloccasions in October and November 2010, students had called her a "cunt" and a "whore" inperson or via text message; however, in support of her allegation, Student 1 only provided theAssistant Superintendent with two text messages from a student from May 2010 of the previousschool year. In the messages, the student wrote "stupid dumb hoe [sic]" and "bye bitch."Student 1 also informed the Assistant Superintendent that students spread a rumor in fall 2010,and previously in spring 2010, that she was pregnant and "going into the woods with [her] ex-boyfriend and doing things with him"; however, the Student provided nothing to support theseaccusations.OCR determined that the Assistant Superintendent interviewed the students allegedly involved,and all denied calling Student 1 a "whore" or "cunt," or spreading any rumors about her beingpregnant or having sexual encounters with her boyfriend. OCR determined that the AssistantSuperintendent interviewed a total of 11 individuals during the course of the investigation;including Student 1,her parents, other students, and District staff.OCR determined that by letter dated April 11, 2011, the Assistant Superintendent notifiedStudent l' s parents that she found no evidence to support that Student 1 "endured severe andpervasive harassment" or "discrimination on the basis of her sex," or that the District "failed toadequately address allegations of harassment based on [Student l' s] gender brought forth by the[complainant] or her parents." The Assistant Superintendent noted that she did "uncoverevidence of inappropriate conduct which was directed towards [Student 1]," but that "I do notfind that this conduct was based on [Student 1's] sex," and "school personnel immediately andadequately addressed such conduct once they became aware of it." The District informed OCR


4/13

B. Student 2


that it was not informed or aware of any further incidents of alleged harassment regardingStudent 1.Based on the above, OCR determined that the evidence did not substantiate that Student 1 or herparents reported any incidents as sexual harassment prior to the complaint filed by thecomplainant on November 30, 2010; nevertheless, the District investigated Student l's parents'concerns and took appropriate action. Additionally, OCR determined that once on notice ofalleged sexual harassment, as of November 30, 2010, the District promptly and appropriatelyinvestigated the complaint. OCR further determined that the evidence failed to support thatStudent 1 was subjected to name-calling that constituted harassment based on Student l' s sex.Further, the evidence failed to establish that any students had spread rumors about Student 1being pregnant or having sexual encounters with her boyfriend. Accordingly, OCR determinedthat there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complainant's allegation that the Districtfailed to respond appropriately to incidents of peer-an-peer sexual harassment with respect toStudent 1.

The complainant alleged that students at the School subjected Student 2 to gender-basedharassment. The complainant alleged that Student 2 reported the harassment to School staff,including a guidance counselor and social worker, but that School personnel failed to takeappropriate action to address the harassment. The complainant informed OCR that in September2010, Student 2 became "depressed and fearful"; his parents therefore agreed that he betemporarily homeschooled.OCR determined that on October 6, 2010, Student 2's father sent an electronic mail message(email) to the Principal stating that Student 2 was being harassed by his peers. Specifically,Student 2' s father stated that the previous week, a student commented that Student 2 was"holding his coffee cup like a faggot." Student 2's father also stated that Student 2 overheardanother student comment about the recent suicide of a Rutgers University student who was gay,statingthat the student's problem was that he was "too sensitive." OCR further determined thatby email dated October 7, 2010, Student 2's mother notified the District that during that weekand the previous one, "[s]omeone in the lunch room imitated [Student 2] in a falsetto voice, andcommented about his clothing," and told him "you run like you're gay." Student 2's mother alsostated that Student 2 "never walks down the hall without getting a look or being called a faggot,or worse" and that the "comments are often graphic and sexual." IOCR determined that Student2' s parents did not identify any of the students allegedly involved by name.OCR determined that on October 8, 2010, the Principal met with Student 2, his parents, andSchool staff. Student 2' s parents stated that during the meeting, they discussed name-calling byother students in the hall; however, Student 2 and his parents did not provide the names ofstudents involved, or any other specific information concerning the alleged incidents ofharassment. OCR determined that the District attempted to obtain further information about theincidents raised by Student 2 and his parents by speaking with building monitors and others toIOn October 13,2010, Student 2's parents also complained to the District's Board of Education, who informed theparents that the District 's administration was responding to the matter.


5/13

Page 5 of 10 -Melissa Goodman, Esq.determine whether the identity of the alleged harassers could be determined; however, theDistrict was unable to confirm that students subjected Student 2 to name-calling, other conductof a sexual nature, or conduct based on gender stereotyping.Nevertheless, OCR determined that the Principal spoke with School staff; including the AssistantPrincipal, all of the guidance counselors and. social workers, and building monitors. ThePrincipal also spoke with members of a student club, the Gay-Straight Alliance, to see if otherstudents believed they had been harassed. Both staff and students stated there were occasionalinappropriate statements (e.g., "that's so gay"), which were not directed towards or aboutparticular students. Additionally, OCR determined that the District provided bullying awarenesstrainings for staff to address the concerns raised by Student 2 and his parents, which wereconducted on November 12, 2010, and December 10, 2010, by the National EducationAssociation and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).OCR determined that on October 27, 2010, Student 2's parents requested home instruction forStudent 2, and Student 2 received home instruction for a period of several weeks. OCRdetermined that by email, dated November 18, 2010, Student 2's mother notified District staffthat when the Student returned to school to attend an extracurricular event, a student (Student A)told Student 2 that "I'm as gay about my clothing as you are," and another student (Student B)"talked in a falsetto voice and commented about the voice of a gay teen" he knew. This time,Student 2's mother identified the students involved by name.OCR determined that the Principal and guidance counselor met with Students A and B. ThePrincipal advised OCR that he and the guidance counselor determined that StudentsA and B didnot intend to offend or harass Student 2 by their statements; and that Students A and B weresupportive of the Student in general. Additionally, Students A and B agreed to "continue beingan ally" for Student 2; i.e., to intervene if they heard inappropriate language and to report anyobserved inappropriate behaviors. The Principal advised OCR that he counseled Students A andB; and that the students understood that regardless of their intentions, their comments wereinappropriate. OCR determined that by email message dated November 19, 2010, the Principaladvised Student 2's parents that he had spoken to the students involved, that it was a "verypositive meeting", and that "these students are very supportive of [Student 2] and will advocatefor him." OCR determined that no further incidents occurred involving StudentsA or B.

Based on the above, OCR determined that Student 2 and his parents were unable to provide .sufficiently specific information for the District to take further action with respect to allegedincidents of harassment reported in October 2010, such as the names of the students allegedly

OCR determined that on January 14, 20ll,Student 2 complained that he was hit with a snowballin the face and allegedly called a "prick." The Assistant Principal informed OCR that she spokewith students and requested Facebook postings to try to determine who was responsible, but wasunable to make such determination. OCR determined that there was no evidence to indicate thatthis incident constituted an act of alleged sexual harassment, or that it was reported to the Districtas such. OCR determined that on January 19, 2011, Student 2'sparents requested homeinstruction through the remainder of the school year, and onApril29, 2011, Student 2 withdrewfrom the District.


6/13


involved. Nevertheless, OCR determined that the District promptly and appropriately respondedto Student 2's parents' complaints by attempting to determine the identity of the students throughinterviews with staff and other students; and, conducting bullying awareness training. OCRfurther determined that Student 2 and his parents provided sufficient information for the Districtto investigate allegations of gender-based harassment in November 2010, and that the Principaland guidance counselor promptly and appropriately responded by meeting with and counselingthe students involved in those incidents. OCR determined that the evidence was insufficient to "indicate that any other incidents occurred or were reported during school year 2010-2011 thatwere sexual in"nature, or based on Student 2's sex. Accordingly, OCR determined that there wasinsufficient evidence to substantiate the complainant's allegation that the District failed torespond appropriately to incidents of peer-on-peer sexual harassment with respect to Student 2.OCR determined that the District did not receive any other complaints of peer-on-peer sexualharassment during school year 2010-2011 from any other students. Therefore, based on theforegoing, OCR determined that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complainant'sallegation that the District failed to respond appropriately to incidents of peer-on-peer sexualharassment. Accordingly, OCR will take no further action with respect to Allegation 1.

Allegation 2With respect to Allegation 2, the complainant alleged that the District failed to adopt and publishgrievance procedures that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints of sexdiscrimination and/or sexual harassment. OCR reviewed whether the District had: (a) designateda Title IX Coordinator; (b) provided notification of the name, office address, and telephonenumber of the Title IX Coordinator; (c) adopted and published grievance procedures providingfor the prompt and equitable resolution of student and. employee complaints ofdiscrimination/harassment on the basis of sex; and (d) provided notice that it does notdiscriminate on the basis of sex.

A. Designation of Title IX CoordinatorThe regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. 106.8(a), requires that each recipientdesignate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out itsresponsibilities under Title IX. The District identified three individuals as its designated Title IXCoordinators: the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction (2009-2010 and 2010-2011); the Principal of the Bennett Elementary School (as of May 3, 2011) and the Principal ofthe Onteora Middle School (as of May 3, 2011). Therefore, OCR determined that the Districtdesignated at least one person to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out itsresponsibilities under the requirements of Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. 106.8(a).

B. Notification of the Name/Title, Office Address, andTelephone Number of the Designated TitleIX Coordinator

The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. 106.8(a), also requires the recipient tonotify all students, employees, and beneficiaries of the name and/or title, office address, andtelephone number of the designated Title IX Coordinator. The District submitted an annual


7/13


notification that it disseminates to students at the beginning of each school year in response toOCR's request for information regarding the means by which the District notifies students,staffand other beneficiaries of the identity and contact information for its designated Title IXCoordinators. The District also informed OCR that the contact information for its designatedTitle IX Coordinators can be found in the District's Board of Education meeting minutes, whichare available on the District's website.OCR reviewed the notification and determined that it contains the name, title, office address, andtelephone number of one of the District's designated Title IX Coordinators; however, thenotification solely directs employees with disability-related concerns to contact the Title IXCoordinator. OCR determined that the District has two regulations for complaints of sexualharassment: Policy Number 6121-Sexual Harassment of District Personnel (Procedure 1); andPolicy Number 7551-Sexual Harassment of Students (Procedure 2). OCR reviewed Procedures1 and 2, and determined that neither of these documents contains all of the required elements fornotification; namely, the name and/or title, office address, and telephone number of thedesignated Title IX Coordinators. OCR also reviewed the District's website, and determined thatthe Board of Education Meeting minutes do not contain all of the required elements fornotification; namely, the office addresses and telephone numbers of the designated Title IXCoordinators. .

C. Grievance ProceduresThe regulation implementing Title IX, at 34C.F.R. 106.8(b), requires that each recipient adoptand publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of student,employee, and third party complaints that allege any action which would be prohibited by theregulation. OCR has identified a number of elements in determining ifgrievance procedures areprompt and equitable, including whether the procedures provide for: (a) notice to students andemployees of procedures, including where .complaints may be filed; (b) application of the. procedures to discrimination byemployees, students, and third parties; (c) adequate, reliable,and

. impartial investigation, including an opportunity to present witnesses and evidence; (d)designated and reasonably prompt timeframes for major stages of the grievance process; (e)notice to parties of the outcome; and (f) assurance that the institution will take steps to preventfurther harassment and to correct its effects if appropriate.OCR determined that the District has four grievance procedures that may be used to address.complaints of discrimination/harassment on the basis of sex: Procedures 1 and 2 referred toabove; Policy Number 6122-Complaints and Grievances by Employees (Procedure 3); andPolicy Number 7550-Complaints and Grievances by Students (Procedure 4). OCR determinedthat these procedures are published on the District's website; are included in an annual mailing toall community members; are set forth in the District's Policy Manual, which is available in theDistrict's offices for review; and are included in the District's Handbook, which is provided toall District personnel.

2 The District informed OCR that this notification was mailed to all District residents on September 13, 2010, aspart of a bulk mailing.


8/13

Page 8 of lO-Melissa Goodman, Esq.

OCR determined that it is not clearly stated in the procedures themselves, or any other Districtpublications, which procedure should be followed in addressing a particular complaint. OCRalso determined that none of these procedures provides complete information about whom theDistrict has designated as the individual with whom to file a complaint ofdiscrimination/harassment on the basis of sex.3 OCR further determined that although theprocedures, in sum, cover complaints of discrimination on the basis of sex made by students andemployees, no procedure specifies whether it would be applicable to complaints by third parties.Additionally, none of the procedures provide for notice to parties of the outcome; specify atimeframe by which the District will investigate and resolve complaints; or state that the Districtwill take steps to prevent further harassment and to correct its effects, if appropriate.

D. Non-Discrimination NoticeThe regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. l06.9(a), requires that a recipientimplement specific and continuing steps to notify applicants for employment, students, parents ofelementary and secondary school students, employees, and all unions or professionalorganizations holding collective bargaining or professional agreements with the recipient that itdoes not discriminate on the basis of sex in the education programs or activities it operates; thatthe prohibition against discrimination extends to employment; and that inquiries to recipientsconcerning the application of Title IX and its implementing regulation may be referred to theTitle IX coordinator or to OCR. The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. l06.9(b),requires recipients to include the notice of nondiscrimination in each announcement, bulletin,catalog, or application form which it makes available to the persons described above, or which isotherwise used in the recruitment of students or employees.OCR determined that the District does not have a non-discrimination notice that complies withTitle IX. OCR determined that the District has Policy Number 3420-Anti-Harassment in theSchool District (the Anti-Harassment Policy), which prohibits sexual harassment, but does notprohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, as required by Title IX. OCR further determined thatthe District does not include the Anti-Harassment Policy in each, announcement, bulletin,catalog, or application form which it makes available to applicants for employment, students,parents of elementary and secondary school students, employees, and all unions or professionalorganizations holding collective bargaining or professional agreements with the recipient, orwhich is otherwise used in the recruitment of students or employees, as required by Title IX for anotice of non-discrimination. Additionally, OCR determined that the Anti-Harassment Policydoes not state that any inquiries concerning the application of Title IX and its implementingregulation may be referred to the District's designated Title IX Coordinator or to OCR, asrequired by Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. l06.9(b).4

3 Procedures land 2 direct individuals to report sexual harassment to unnamed Compliance Officers; Procedures 3and 4 state that the Superintendent will designate a Title IX Coordinator, but do not identify the designated Title IXCoordinator, or clearly state that complaints of sex discrmination and/or sexual harassment should be directed to thedesignated Title IX Coordinator.4 The District's Anti-Harassment Policy directs individuals to report sexual harassment to the Distrct's designatedComplaint Officer(s).


9/13


On November 4, 2011, the District agreed to implement the enclosed resolution agreement,which addresses the above-mentioned compliance concerns with respect to Allegation 2. OCRwill monitor the implementation of the resolution agreement. If the District fails to implementthe terms of the resolution agreement, OCR will resume its investigation of the complaint.This letter sets forth OCR's determination in an individual OCR case. This letter is not a formalstatement of OCR policy and should not be relied upon, cited, or construed as such. OCR's formalpolicy statements are approved by a duly authorized OCR official and made available to the public.The complainant may have the right to file a private suit in federal court whether or not OCR finds aviolation.It is unlawful to harass or intimidate an individual who has filed a complaint or participated inactions to secure protected rights. If this should occur, you may file a separate complaint withOCR alleging such harassment or intimidation.Under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, it may be necessary to release this letterand related correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such arequest, it will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable informationthat, if released, could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.If you have questions, please contact Emma Kim, Senior Compliance Team Attorney, at (646)428-3824 or [email protected]; Terri Russo, Compliance Team Attorney, at (646) 428-3790or [email protected]; or Emily Frangos, Complian Team Leader, at (646) 428-3831 [email protected]. If you still have concerns following the conversation, you may appealOCR's determination to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement at the address indicatedbelow, within 60 days of the date of this letter.

Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for EnforcementU.S. Department of EducationOffice for Civil Rights400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20202; 01'[email protected]

While you are encouraged to do so, having a discussion with the case team members about theOCR determination is not a prerequisite to filing an appeal with the Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Enforcement, and it does not stop the running of the 60-day timeline.Should you decide to file an appeal, be as specific as possible. Your correspondence shouldfocus on factual or legal concerns that you believe may change the determination. You shouldexplain why you believe the determination was incorrect, Le., why the factual information was


10/13

Sincer ly, ----_ .. . ,.

,{

Page 10 of 10 -Melissa Goodman, Esq.

incomplete, the analysis of the facts was incorrect, the legal standard was not applied correctly,and/or the incorrect legal standard was applied. The Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Enforcementwill respond in writing.

Timothy C. J. BlanchardEricl.


11/13

RESOLUTION AGREEMENT ,Onteora Central School DistrictCase No. 02..11..1203

In o rder to reso lve the co mpliance co ncerns identified in Case N o . 02 ..11 ..1203 , the Onteo ra CentralScho ol D istrict assures the U .S . D epartm ent o f Educatio n, N ew Y ork O ffice fo r C iv il R igh ts (O CR), th atit w ill take the aetio ns detailed below pursuant to th e requirements o f Title IX o f th e Educatio nAm endm ents o f 1972 (Title IX ), as am ended, 20 U .S .C . 1681 et seq ., and its im plem enting regulatio n at34 C .F .R . Part 106. .Action Item 1: Title IX CoordinatorsBy February 15 , 2012, therDJtl'lct dissem inated to studen ts, paren ts, andemp loy e es t o n o ti fy a ll ' ~i tU1L


12/13

Page 2 of 3-Resolution Agreement (Case No. 02~11~1203)3. the name, title, office address, and telephone number of the individuals) with whom to file a

complaint;4. definitions and examples of what types of actions may constitute sex discrimination (includingsexualharassment, gender-based harassment, sexual assault, and sexual violence);5. designated and reasonably prompt timeframes for major stages ofthe grievance process;6. writtennotice to parties of the outcome of the investigation; and7. an assurance that the District will take steps to prevent discrimination and harassment, to preventthe recurrence -o f discrimination and harassment, and to correct its discriminatory effects, if

appropriate.Reporting Requirements:

(a) By February 15,2012, the District will provide its revised Title IX grievance procedures toOCR for review and approval.

(b) Within fifteen (15) days of the District's receipt of OCR's approved revised Title IXgrievance procedures, the District will provide OCR with documentation to substantiatethat. it has formally adopted the OCR-approved revised procedures; updated its printedpublications and on-line publications with the revised procedures (inserts may be usedpending reprinting of these publications); and electronically disseminated the revisedgrievance procedures to students and employees. This documentation will include at aminimum: (i) printouts ora link. to all on-line publications containing the revisedgrievanceprocedures; (ii) evidence of the electronic dissemination of the revised grievanceprocedures to students and employees; and (iii) if not yet finalized, copies of inserts forprinted publications.

(c) By April 15, 2012, the District will provide to OCR copies of the printed versions of allpublications disseminated to students and employees containing the revised Title IXgrievance procedures.

Action Item 4: 'fitle IX TrainingBy April 15, 2012, the District will provide Title IX training to its Title IX Coord inator fs) , any othercoordinators, and any District staff who will be directly involved in processing, investigating and/orresolving 'complaints of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, gender-based harassment, sexual assault,or sexual violence, or who will otherwise coordinate the District's compliance with Title IX. TheDistrict's training will cover the District's new grievance procedures for Title IX complaints and willprovide attendees with instruction on recognizing and appropriately addressing allegations and complaintspursuant to Title IX. The training will include information concerning what constitutes sexdiscrimination, sexual harassment, gender-based harassment, sexual assault and sexual violence, and theDistrict's responsibilities under Title IX to address allegations of inappropriate behaviors based on sex.Additionally, the training will include instruction on how to conduct and document adequate, reliable, andimpartial Title IX investigations, including the appropriate legal standard of a preponderance of theevidence to apply in a Title IX investigation. The District will distribute copies of its revised non-discrimination statement and Title IX grievance procedures to all attendees.

Reporting Re.quirement: By Apri115, 2012, the District will provide OCR with documentationdemonstrating that it provided training in accordance with Action Item (4) above. Thedocumentation will include, at a rninimum, the name(s) and credentials of the traners), the


13/13

P ag e 3 o f3 - R eso lu tio n A greem en t (C ase N o . 0 2-11 -1 203 )datees) an d tim e(s) o f th e tran in gs), th e n am es o f staff in attend ance, and co pies o f an y train in gmater ials dist r ibuted .

T he D is tric t u nd ers tan ds th at OCR w ill n ot c lo se th e m o nito rin g o f th is ag reeme nt u ntil OCR d eterm in es th at th e D is tric t h asfu lfilled th e term s o f th is agreem ent an d is in co m plian ce w ith th e reg ulatio n im plem entin g T itle IX , at 34 e.F .R . 10 6.S an d1 06 .9 , w h ic h w ere a t is su e in th is c as e. T h e D is tric t als o u nd ers tan ds th at b y sig nin g th is a gre em en t, it a gree s to p ro vid e d ataa nd o t he r information i n a t im e ly mann er i n a cc o rd an ce w it h t he re po rt in g r eq ui rem en ts o f th is a gr eem en t. F ur th er , t he D is tr ic tu nd er st an ds t ha t d ur in g t he m o n it o rin g o f t hi s a gr eem en t, i f n ec es sa ry , OCR may v is it t he D is tr ic t, i nt er vi ew s ta ff a nd s tu de nt s,a nd r eques t su ch add it io n a l r ep o rt s 01 ' d ata as a re n ece ssa ry fo r OCR to d eterm in e w h eth er th e D is tric t h as fu lfille d th e te rm s o fth is ag reem en t and is in co m pliance w ith th e regu latio n im plem en tin g T itle IX , at 3 4 e.F .R . 1 06.8 an d 1 06 .9, w hich w ere ati ss ue in th is c as e.

m,-I -ate (/Elytis iegel ill~, ' . ,l .D.,ordeslghee)Supe ri nt enden t o f Schoo lsOn te o ra Cent ra l S ch o o l D is tric t

Documents

Civil Rights Report on Onteora School District